What qualifies as a shitty Discussion post anyway? Apart from the obvious stuff (off-topic threads, blatant a-logging, etc.) it's really kind of hard to sort out the good from the bad, because the entire forum is just the same exact conversations being rehashed ad infinitum. Establishing some kind of standard of quality seems like an impossible task when even the most well-written and intelligent posts aren't really saying anything that hasn't been said before.
People in the past have criticized the forum as generally being poor quality. I'm of the school of thought that we really can't quantify what a good post is here. At the same time, I don't expect everyone to have some brilliant, well thought out revelation about Chris ready for every thread. People want ot talk about Chris and I set up the forums as a place they can do so. As long as you're not being disruptive and with very low bars for what passes as a reasonable post, you're pretty much free to say whatever you want about Chris. People on PVCC have a view that their opinion about Chris is the only valid view and everyone else is a sperglord who's wrong. People on /cow/ or whatever they're calling themselves this week are like that, to a lesser degree. I don't have that view, I have opinions about Chris but I don't think it's the word of God in that my views are the only acceptable views. As long as you're not saying how Chris gives autistics like you a bad name, and you're not an asshole, you're welcome to have any views you want and to talk to them here.
Now that I think about it, I think the point about the same conversations about Chris might be a reason I never really thought of when it comes to why PVCC and /cow/ abandoned talking about Chris. But I feel like that's the way with a lot of topics though. I mean, take Shakespeare - his plays are over 400 years old, people have been reading them for that time, how much more can we say about them? I mean it's not like the man is going to release a new play, maybe they'll find a new one, and maybe someone will have some radical new way to look at but there are people who spend their lives studying the man and they're probably not saying anything radically new or clever about the man. Though to be fair, there's more breadth to someone like Shakespeare, whereas with Chris he's a real life equivalent of a one dimension TV character - he's Christian Weston Chandler, he created Sonichu, he needs a girlfriend, he's autistic, etc.
Again, I don't want to drift too far from Chris and I don't think we constantly need to make the forum "fresh" but I think we need to give us some room to breath and grow. I think the only way to revitalize interest in Chris, not that I give a shit if people are interested in him, is by making his material accessible to people in other languages so we might get some new interesting discussions or insights.
